Cover Image

PAPERBACK
$37.75



View/Hide Left Panel

J
Overcoming Impediments to Cooperation Between the United States and Russia: Elements of Successful Project Preparation

Michael S. Elleman and Wendin D. Smith

Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc.

As discussed during our meeting on February 10, 2005, we believe that the definition phase of nonproliferation projects comprises several steps, with particular components inherent to each. We recommend that, prior to engaging the Cooperative Threat Reduction Integrating Contractor (CTRIC) in a contractual relationship, a U.S. technical team composed of relevant government and support specialists (technical and diplomatic) deploy to the country of engagement for a short, 3- to 6-month period. During this period, the goal of the technical team would be to clarify key elements to enable smooth and efficient project implementation. These elements are outlined below.

ELEMENTS

  1. Clarify the task

    1. Articulate the high-level questions that need to be answered, such as which institutes will be engaged and the amount or type of material to be secured.

    2. Determine if (1) cooperative (contractual) frameworks are in place to proceed with the project, (2) funding is secured, (3) a site(s) is selected (in compliance with treaties) and land is allocated, and (4) appropriate processes and entities to obtain permits and licenses are in place.

  1. Define the problem and gap analysis

    1. Political environment/dynamics

      1. Assess and select the implementing agent and identify by name appropriate points of contact within the executive agency.

      2. Identify regional/local versus federal interests on the part of the host nation.

      3. Consider an international agreement(s) for large-scale projects to avoid federal versus regional/local controversies.

      4. Determine the local political situation and agree on how this will continually be monitored.

      5. Assess nongovernmental organization involvement and any history of controversy related to similar projects.

      6. Coordinate outreach activities and messages for public relations.

      7. Determine election schedules and potential overlap with project schedules.

      8. Determine the degree of host nation’s fulfillment of certification requirements.

      9. Assess host nation’s stance on foreign policy issues important to the United States.

    1. Assess host nation support for the project, such as budgets, public attitudes, and access/openness to vested players and stakeholders. Design and agree upon a process to iteratively monitor stakeholders’ interests.

    2. U.S. interests: understand and discuss with host nation stakeholders the following: (1) congressional perception of the planned enhancement of host nation capabilities (the imperative); (2) linkages between program goals and outcomes, money spent, and return on investment; and (3) the potential for the suspension of assistance if the host nation fails to comply with certification requirements, treaty obligations, deadlines, etc. In addition, understand the alignment with the budget cycle (cost and schedule), formulation of the president’s and congressional budgets, and possibly, exercise of presidential waivers (if pertinent).

  1. Technical understanding: validate the technology planned, especially if it is novel, and assess the political/economic implications of the technology slated for use (i.e., open-burn stands, biosafety level 3 laboratories). Understand and outline the evolution of the tech-



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 84
Strengthening U.S.-Russian Cooperation on Nuclear Nonproliferation: Recommendations for Action J Overcoming Impediments to Cooperation Between the United States and Russia: Elements of Successful Project Preparation Michael S. Elleman and Wendin D. Smith Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc. As discussed during our meeting on February 10, 2005, we believe that the definition phase of nonproliferation projects comprises several steps, with particular components inherent to each. We recommend that, prior to engaging the Cooperative Threat Reduction Integrating Contractor (CTRIC) in a contractual relationship, a U.S. technical team composed of relevant government and support specialists (technical and diplomatic) deploy to the country of engagement for a short, 3- to 6-month period. During this period, the goal of the technical team would be to clarify key elements to enable smooth and efficient project implementation. These elements are outlined below. ELEMENTS Clarify the task Articulate the high-level questions that need to be answered, such as which institutes will be engaged and the amount or type of material to be secured. Determine if (1) cooperative (contractual) frameworks are in place to proceed with the project, (2) funding is secured, (3) a site(s) is selected (in compliance with treaties) and land is allocated, and (4) appropriate processes and entities to obtain permits and licenses are in place. Define the problem and gap analysis Political environment/dynamics Assess and select the implementing agent and identify by name appropriate points of contact within the executive agency. Identify regional/local versus federal interests on the part of the host nation. Consider an international agreement(s) for large-scale projects to avoid federal versus regional/local controversies. Determine the local political situation and agree on how this will continually be monitored. Assess nongovernmental organization involvement and any history of controversy related to similar projects. Coordinate outreach activities and messages for public relations. Determine election schedules and potential overlap with project schedules. Determine the degree of host nation’s fulfillment of certification requirements. Assess host nation’s stance on foreign policy issues important to the United States. Assess host nation support for the project, such as budgets, public attitudes, and access/openness to vested players and stakeholders. Design and agree upon a process to iteratively monitor stakeholders’ interests. U.S. interests: understand and discuss with host nation stakeholders the following: (1) congressional perception of the planned enhancement of host nation capabilities (the imperative); (2) linkages between program goals and outcomes, money spent, and return on investment; and (3) the potential for the suspension of assistance if the host nation fails to comply with certification requirements, treaty obligations, deadlines, etc. In addition, understand the alignment with the budget cycle (cost and schedule), formulation of the president’s and congressional budgets, and possibly, exercise of presidential waivers (if pertinent). Technical understanding: validate the technology planned, especially if it is novel, and assess the political/economic implications of the technology slated for use (i.e., open-burn stands, biosafety level 3 laboratories). Understand and outline the evolution of the tech-

OCR for page 84
Strengthening U.S.-Russian Cooperation on Nuclear Nonproliferation: Recommendations for Action nology that will be used, including the motivations of the technology’s advocates, and how the choice in technology may or may not serve host nation capacity-building goals. Finally, characterize the materials to be utilized, and determine if the technology will be available in time for project execution. Regulatory issues Licensing and approval processes Develop a detailed list of the ministries, government agencies, and quasi regulatory bodies whose rules must be followed and whose input must be secured. Ensure that regulatory stakeholders are involved and motivated at the preconcept/predesign phase. Assess which host nation entity will be the regulatory applicant and assess the key relationships involving that entity. Assess the motivations/biases/stressors of each regulatory body and develop motivational strategies across the project life cycle. Assess the risk of major changes in the regulatory structure and the presence of implementation gaps in the legislation. Identify key host nation players who may play dual roles (especially on expert review panels) or who may become roadblocks to implementation. International/federal/regional/local differences and similarities: assess general interactions, especially known structural conflicts or cross-jurisdictional differences, as well as the impact of structural political conflicts on the project. Integration across contracts: identify projects requiring similar regulatory regimes. Identify similar internationally funded projects in the host nation that may involve the same stakeholders. Treaties: evaluate the impacts of applicable treaties, including requirements and limitations. Capabilities and resources Staff: a significant number of dedicated in-country staff will be needed to create and maintain nonproliferation projects. Are the appropriate individuals available, and/or do they require training? If so, who will provide and maintain training? Develop an understanding of the key organizational and individual players, especially those in charge of staff selection, and the composition of expert review panels. Training: have training processes been granted regulatory approvals, and are appropriate trainers in place? Clarify assumptions, goals, linkages (cross-project dependencies) and implications (risks) related to implementation Supply chain concerns, including choices of indigenous versus imported equipment. Economics/end state of the program, including sustainability questions. For example, who will be responsible for salaries, utilities, and security; and who will take on the responsibility of the “ownership” of the facilities and equipment. Cost/schedule: gain concurrence on overall project schedule, cost, and budgets to be expended on U.S. versus host nation personnel. CONCLUSION Consideration of and agreement upon the framework of these elements should occur prior to contract award to a national laboratory, CTRIC, or a similar body. Furthermore, most of these factors should be considered iteratively throughout the project, thereby reducing the number of risks and enabling stronger communications within and between the host nation and U.S. stakeholders. The comprehensive completion of a project definition phase with a small body of technical personnel (with appropriate levels of authority) would ease intercountry relations throughout the program, reduce costs, and enhance program sustainability.